I think this is a gross simplification - companies find politicians that are sympathetic to their positions to begin with, and then help finance those campaigns. I don't know about John Culberson specifically, but I'm quite sure that if you spoke to him or to numerous other politicians receiving the contributions you are complaining about - they would staunchly defend the positions they have adapted as being independent of donations. It's really not black and white.

Sure, it is the same thing in practice - but it's not what OP is suggesting:

>> Who would want to admit they are guilty of being essentially corrupt?Of cooooourse they would find excuses. But it's incredibly naïve to say US politicians aren't influenced by money. They are all bought.

> Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money.

The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests.

Obviously you are assuming that I'm pulling my statements out of thin air (or some other place where the sun don't shine :D ).

Here's a paper from Princeton University that essentially says that public opinion as almost ZERO effect on US policy:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

Also it should be noted the paper contrasts public opinion to 'organized interest groups':

> Our third and fourth theoretical traditions posit that public policy generally reflects the outcome of struggle among organized interest groups and business firms.

But in a number of cases organized interest groups are representative of a significant sector of public opinion (the NRA being one such example, or the ACLU is another).

Even those people who aren't so consistent in their voting just vote for whoever the advertising tells them to, which favors the most well funded and thus most corrupt candidates.

Do you, in all honesty, think that public schools getting closed, Wall Street getting bailed out instead of jailed for ruining an entire economy, medication being kept expensive, social security getting cut, pay day lenders getting more influence, having the shittiest labor laws in the world, or even Tesla being prevented from selling cars on the web has nothing to do with corrupt US politics?

In all honesty, sometimes I think that Americans DESERVE to be in all the troubles they are in today - they REFUSE to see the truths that are in plain sight. Americans, despite being on the fast track to hitting an economic and societal brick wall will always find excuses to defend the elite who are the obvious and very overt source of their troubles.

The fact that Boeing et all wants to sell more rockets does not make researching europa any less relevant, IMO.

It's not as if this congressman is being sold as a champion of human wisdom. Career politicians have other value and should not be judged as philosophers.

http://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--...

Rather than get upset about how corrupt politics can be (and that's putting it mildly), what you're supposed to do is root for the version of corruption that appeals to your tastes.

I can hardly believe Lockheed with Boeing investing into research over life in space research.

In the US, people are becoming increasingly tolerant of corruption. These days it more often invokes funny euphemisms than action. Politicians have innate incentive to fall into corruption, and it's expected that some of them do from time to time. But, it's the people's job to keep them in check.

If this country values funding science, then it should let the scientists determine where and how the money should be spent, not politicians, not lobbies.

But I think it's quite naive to look at campaign contributions as a dominant factor in the corruption of American society. It's a tempting scenario, and the numbers are visible, so it's easy to think they're important.

But reality is far more complex. And less conspiratorical.

"America" doesn't have interests, people have interests.